The past 50 years have witnessed a significant debate over how justices should interpret the Constitution. Should they treat it as a living document that they must reinterpret based on changing social conditions or must they treat its meaning as fixed at the time that it was written and ratified? Does it give license to read their own preferences into the document under the guise of interpretation? If its meaning is fixed, does that prevent legal doctrine from adapting to and meeting needs of contemporary  society?  This lecture addresses these disputes.